Blog 11 – IMHO #2

Today local news highlighted an incident involving a BART police officer who was injured while making an arrest. A portion of the event was recorded by another passenger and distributed to news sources. All of the local news channels played the footage and rose questions about whether the BART officer had exercised excessive force when he arrested the intoxicated suspect. What the short clip showed was a belligerently drunk caucasian man shouting at other passengers on a BART train car and apparently trying to provoke them to fight with him as well. The other passengers were visibly uncomfortable. Only a few moments into the video clip, a man, probably the officer, could be heard telling the drunk man that he needed to go and get off the train. Michael Joseph Andrew, 37, was then approached by the officer and removed from the train car, followed by applause from on-lookers, and onto the platform in Oakland. The officer swiftly tried to overpower the individual by pulling his hands behind his back. Andrew resisted and the officer pushed him towards the wall when the window shattered. It is not clear how the window broke but it seems that the suspect’s head hit the glass. Reports said that the suspect was not seriously injured and did not require stitches for his injuries. The officer, on the other hand, received cuts that did require stitches and he also sustained a concussion. He was placed on leave for his injuries and an investigation is pending.

The teaser that the news stations offered suggested that police brutality or excessive force were to blame for the broken window. I think the window broke because the glass was obviously not up to par with what is required for an upper-level exterior window in a public building. That glass was intended to bear weight since it is at a level where people can reach and because it is in such a public place. The fact that it appeared to break so easily makes it clear that it was weak. The officer could not have know that the glass was faulty. Also, the man clearly struggled with the officer since the two could be seen stumbling on the way to the wall where the window was. The officer had to use more force to get him to the wall which means it would be very easy for the two to hit the window hard.

One thing that was very obvious in the video was that the officer was trying to do his job; he was trying to help. The other passengers clearly appreciated his efforts so why can’t everyone else? Why are the police constantly under attack from the press? The police are only human, like the rest of us, and can make mistakes too. His injuries were worse than the criminals so obviously breaking the window was an accident (and not by negligence on his part). If people keep attacking the police officers, even when they’re not in the wrong, the good ones will give up and all that will be left will be the ones who are so corrupt that they won’t care about the criticism. People should give this guy a break, this incident is nothing like the BART police shooting that occurred in Oakland, this was clearly an accident and the officer deserves an apology from the press.

Word of the Week #10

Word: Hegemonies
Source: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59200/niall-ferguson/hegemony-or-empire
Context:Two Hegemonies provides an answer; but “empire” might be the better word.
Definition:noun. Leadership or dominance, esp. by one country or social group over others
Usage: We lived in terror under my mother’s moody hegemony.

Copy Edit the World #2

 

"is very fragrant variety" should say "is a very fragrant"

 

"honey bee colonies in the U.S. are move" should say "in the U.S. move"

"think twice the next time program" should say "next time you program"

 

"abeit" should be "albeit"

"no illegal drugs in detected in" should read "no illegal drugs detected in"

 

Says "learned how to play the four musical instruments" where it should say "learned how to play four musical instruments."

Should say "a Hall of Fame inductee's speech" and there should be an apostrophe in "nerd's"

Should have a noun and punctuation after "huge" and "three" is misspelled as "thre"

"pages your" should be "pages of your"

 

 

 

 

 

Blog #9 Japanese Internment Memorial

On December 7, 1941 the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Amidst the fear of sabotage and espionage by Japanese Americans, President Franklin D. Roosevelt passed Executive Order 9066 on February 19th of 1942. This order demanded that the Japanese American population of some 120,000 be removed from the general population and put into camps. Most of those imprisoned were U.S. citizens and approximately half were children. They were condemned because people feared that they would help the enemy even though not one Japanese American had ever committed such a crime.

Forced to leave their homes, the Japanese Americans were allowed to bring only 150 pounds of personal belongings per person. This meant that they would have to do away with whatever else they could not bring. They sold off what they could and suffered huge losses because, for the most part, they did not receive fair prices for their things. People knew they had no choice but to sell their belongings so they took advantage of them and offered them less than what their were worth.

At first the Japanese Americans were sent to temporary camps until the permanent camps were completed. One of the temporary camps was Santa Anita which was a horse stable. Families were packed into horse stalls with asphalt floors. When the permanent camps were completed, they were sent to one of the 10 locations to stay until the “threat” that they posed was over. Unfortunately the permanent camps were not much better than the temporary camps. They too, were small and overcrowded.

San Jose’s Japantown was severely affected by the mass incarceration. The town that boasted 53 Japanese American owned businesses saw almost all of them close when the 3,000 residents were sent away to Heart Mountain, Wyoming to be kept in the internment camp. This included approximately 250 California State University students, including San Jose State University students, who were seeking a degree. SJSU even held some of them in a gymnasium before being sent away. Many of them never returned to complete their education after they were devastated by the internment.

Ruth Asawa was one of the many interned Japanese Americans. After her father was arrested by the F.B.I., when she was only 16-years-old, her family was taken to the Santa Anita Race Track for six months before being sent to the Rohwer Relocation Center in Rohwer, Arkansas. While she was there, Asawa made the most her time. She studied with professional artists and spent much of her time practicing drawing and painting. She was fortunate enough to have spent 18 months in internment instead of much longer like others, including the rest of her family, had.

After being released, Asawa pursued art as a profession with much success. Her experience in internment was the inspiration for her Japanese Internment Memorial piece which was installed in San Jose. The memorial is a bronze bas relief mural depicting the daily life of those who lived in internment as well as the history behind it. The indignities they suffered are portrayed by people shown living in substandard housing while the children play in the dirt. Barbed wire runs across the entire mural to signify their imprisonment. Asawa gives historical background by showing Executive Order 9066 as well as listing the 10 locations of the internment camps. This serves as a reminder, for people today, of what happened in our own country and hopefully a reminder of why it should never happen again. The mural also shows the strength of the Japanese American community with the many family shields of those who lived in San Jose before they were sent away. The shields show that the family will survive and overcome what they have suffered.

Resources:

http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/timeline.html

http://www.japantownsanjose.org/history.html

http://www.sjsu.edu/publicaffairs/services/budget/archive/csuupdatesep25/

 

Blog #8 IMHO #1

President Obama has finally decided to do something about big corporation collapse and the obligatory bailouts. New legislation may be introduced this week that will allow the government to take control of failing banks by throwing out their management and shareholders as well as change the terms of existing loans. My major concern: is this overcorrecting? Are we jerking ourselves to far in the other direction?

Yes, the government handed out bailouts a year ago without much restrictions on how they could be used. Yes, the government did it again in March. And, yes, they did not impose restrictions even after it was discovered that In October of 2008 AIG received $85 billion in bailout funds from the government. Less than one week later they were caught spending more than $440,000 for a company retreat at a luxury resort in California. This retreat included rooms that can cost over $1,000 a night! Their punishment: President Obama scolded them. However, is the solution to give so much power to the government over businesses?

The legislation proposes that large companies, those so large that the government is forced to bail them out, can be broken up by the government. I’m worried that we’re giving to much of our rights away. It is true that the bailouts were not a satisfactory solution in the eyes of many American citizens. Will this be the answer or is this new legislation bound to end up in the heap of a mess we’re in?

Should the government be able to divide corporations even if they are running legally and are not monopolistic? It just does not sound like the American ideal of freedom. However, if the largest institutions are broken up, the market could entertain more competition. A competitive market is one of our great privileges and it is very American. These enormous institutions also pose a major problem if they fail.

Major criticisms of the Obama administration’s strategy include the increased cost of doing business during better times. Also, it could make investors nervous and less secure because they won’t know when a bank is “too big” and will less likely want to invest creating another stock market decline. These are very real concerns.

I really want to see the current problems fixed. The bailouts are just making companies think that they can take bigger risks with our money because they know the government will be there to give them the money they need to stay afloat. I hope that this new legislation can balance this delicate issue without creating another problem on it’s own, it will be interesting to watch this play out.

Sources:

Labaton, Stephen. (2009, October 25). U.s. considers reining in ‘too big to fail’ institutions. The New York Times, Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/business/economy/26big.html?_r=1&hp

Word of the Week #8

Word: infirm
Definition: adjective. Not physically or mentally strong, esp. through age or illness.
Context: Congress would not be adopting death panels for infirm people but for troubled companies.
Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/business/economy/26big.html?_r=1&hp
Usage: My infirm grandmother passed away after the last few difficult years.

Blog #6 NPR Radio Interview Analysis

From: “Jason Segel Explains the Mysteries of Guydom” on NPR’s Fresh Air.

The interviewer knew about all of her interviewee’s previous movies and his acting career. She sets the scene by describing the plot of his most recent movie (I Love You, Man) and even playing a funny clip. “Describe your character” was a broad open-ended question that she started off with which gives the interviewee room to say anything they like. At one point she asks him a question and she disagrees with him so she points this out, not in a mean way, and she allows him to elaborate on what he really meant. When he doesn’t properly describe a scene from a movie in a way that radio listeners can picture, she describes more of the scene’s detail for the audience. The interviewer creates a friendly relationship by complimenting the movies that he worked on and laughing at his jokes. Her strategy was to promote the movie but also get his take on the meanings behind the movie, about relationships between men and men, and men and women. To keep the interview lively and to possibly provoke more stories, sound clips from the movie are frequently played. She works up to her question about whether these movies that he’s been in are macho by describing the meaning of “bromance.” She follows up by saying things like “that’s interesting,” ” I completely agree,” or “but what about this,” etc..

Listening to this interview, I realized that it’s OK to completely disagree with the interviewee without putting them on the defensive and actually being able to get more of an interesting story.

Word of the Week #7

Word: louche

Definition: adjective. Disreputable or sordid in a rakish or appealing way.

Source: Diaz, Junot. The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao. pp. 115.

Context: Handsome in that louche potbellied mid-forties Hollywood producer sort of way, with pouched grey eyes that had seen (and didn’t miss) much.

Usage: What he lacked in physical qualities, he made up for with his louche reputation as a kingpin.

Word of the Week #6

Word: Milieu

Context: Here is a description of a dogfight given by the sociologists Rhonda Evans and Craig Forsyth in “The Social Milieu of Dogmen and Dogfights,” an article they published some years ago in the journal Deviant Behavior.

Source: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=2

Definition: noun. surroundings, esp. of a social or cultural nature.

Usage: The milieu of New York is one of creativity and uniqueness.

Mystery Character

We usually see him on TV very, very late at night but recently he can be seen just late at night. He left New York for a new home in Los Angeles. His awkward height and gangly arms are capped with his puffy, red, pompadour hairstyle. His sidekick, who sat on the couch next to him, left for his own career a few years ago but has returned with a podium. The seat once occupied by his sidekick is not empty though. It is always filled with celebrity guests and occasionally a man dressed as a manatee. Every once in a while he can be seen wearing bells around his neck with a flashlight under his face singing “In the Year 3000” His high-pitched voice is not the only thing about him that cracks us up. He is also a great, and freckled, comedian.